MKH v JBH  NSWSC 1031 saw the Court decline to appoint a protected estate manager in advance of the determination of the District Court proceedings, in the context of a dispute in the compensation proceedings about quantification of an allowance, admittedly to be made, for the costs of funds management. (see ). A tutor was in place for the compensation proceedings.
It was noted at  that if the Court was to appoint a protected estate manager for the defendant now, it would operate to suspend his power to manage his own affairs (NSW Trustee and Guardian Act, 2009, section 71) and require the authority of the plaintiff as his tutor in the District Court proceedings to be reviewed. It could interfere with the conduct of the District Court proceedings, and inject into those proceedings a manager with a vested interest in their conduct.
At  Lindsay J said:
Without a demonstrated need for the appointment of a protected estate manager to conduct the litigation, without information about the role proposed to be played by a protected estate manager in the conduct of the litigation, and without precise knowledge of fees proposed to be charged by a protected estate manager for the conduct of the litigation, this Court should be slow to involve in contested proceedings for personal injury compensation an entity such as Ability One Financial Management Pty Ltd (whose consent to appointment as a protected estate manager is contingent upon a grant of authority to charge fees) which has, or may have, a vested commercial interest (which may differ from that of the person in need of protection) in the outcome of those proceedings: Re W and L (Parameters of protected estate management orders)  NSWSC 1106 at .